Filed: Jun. 26, 2018
Latest Update: Mar. 03, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 18-6336 JACK E. LEWIS, JR., Plaintiff - Appellant, v. FEDERAL COMMUNICATION COMMISSION, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Roanoke. Robert Stewart Ballou, Magistrate Judge. (7:18-cv-00113-MFU-RSB) Submitted: June 21, 2018 Decided: June 26, 2018 Before DIAZ and HARRIS, Circuit Judges, and SHEDD, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opi
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 18-6336 JACK E. LEWIS, JR., Plaintiff - Appellant, v. FEDERAL COMMUNICATION COMMISSION, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Roanoke. Robert Stewart Ballou, Magistrate Judge. (7:18-cv-00113-MFU-RSB) Submitted: June 21, 2018 Decided: June 26, 2018 Before DIAZ and HARRIS, Circuit Judges, and SHEDD, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opin..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 18-6336
JACK E. LEWIS, JR.,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
FEDERAL COMMUNICATION COMMISSION,
Defendant - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at
Roanoke. Robert Stewart Ballou, Magistrate Judge. (7:18-cv-00113-MFU-RSB)
Submitted: June 21, 2018 Decided: June 26, 2018
Before DIAZ and HARRIS, Circuit Judges, and SHEDD, Senior Circuit Judge.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Jack E. Lewis, Jr., Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Jack E. Lewis, Jr., seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying his motion for
appointment of counsel. This court may exercise jurisdiction only over final orders, 28
U.S.C. § 1291 (2012), and certain interlocutory and collateral orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1292
(2012); Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b); Cohen v. Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp.,
337 U.S. 541,
545-46 (1949). The order Lewis seeks to appeal is neither a final order nor an appealable
interlocutory or collateral order. Accordingly, we deny the motion for appointment of
counsel and dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. We dispense with oral argument
because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before
this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED
2